It's because the Right doesn't believe in Freedom or Liberty. They believe in power and control and more importantly being able to decide what rights other people have based on their socioeconomic status.

It might be fun for you to take a vacation to a country with no building codes, no food inspectors, no labeling laws, no noise bylaws, no courts to enforce contracts, and all the other "freedom surprresing" rules.
Then you should read Hobbs, Mills, and Locke so that you understand exactly why it is that we are more free with street lights then without. One could easily argue that a red street light is a gross violation of your liberty by the gubberment. But do your really want to live in a city without st

A predecessor to the United States already tried this. It was an abject failure. Did you know that rich people who think "someone" should fund the government almost always mean "someone else, obviously, I've got yachts to buy" ?

Did you know that rich people who think "someone" should fund the government almost always mean "someone else, obviously, I've got yachts to buy" ?

I haven't noticed that being rich had an effect on that particular mindset. The point of government is to give me free shit. Having me actually pay for that defeats the purpose - whether I'm rich or poor.

Then why is so much of that government spending, entitlement spending?

Because you're thinking maintenance costs as entitlements. You're so used to living in a peaceful, lawful society you think it's the natural state of things rather than something that was won by ensuring Joe Beggar has options besides starving or mugging you. Or maybe you're simply subconsciously assuming the opportunities inherent in frontier period America still exist today, and any disenfranchised person can simply go West and grab some land to farm.

They say on the front page that they are experiencing unexpected and sharp increase in volumes of orders. That means they are delaying all shipping for 48 business hours. Since working hours are around 8 hours normally, this means 6 days delay at least on shipping when people order from this website. But that is something they should not do, since it is unlikely they are going to get what they did order.

They are also faking reviews and other such things. Claim and information on the fake reviews can be found in the comment on the site I am linking to.

There's probably a good chance that they are planning to go out of business in the next few weeks. Take money from people, ship out whatever you don't think you can sell to others, sell whatever product you have on hand to others for cash, then sweep everything out of the company coffers and let the company get sued into oblivion.

Since the company doesn't own anything, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

Can anyone comment reliably on whether this strategy actually holds up in the US? Here in the UK, I would expect that knowingly and deliberately running a company into the dust like that would be grounds for piercing the corporate veil [wikipedia.org].

I'd certainly find it difficult to imagine Kleargear would see an upsurge in orders. Google results for Kleargear are overwhelmingly negative, and they're swiftly picking up poor reviews in WOT and similar site ranking tools.

The 48 business hour delay is odd. In addition to this, their order status site is down.

Question for anyone who knows: how the hell did KlearGear report a debt to a credit reporting agency in the first place? The credit reports are indexed by SSN, and they only have other identifiers like credit card numbers to go by if you don't have that. They paid by PayPal. Doesn't PayPal hide your credit card number from the merchant? With just a name, how did they report it? Does anyone know?

Easy... They had the person's full name and address, probably more relevant contact information.

Think of it this way... a call to Equifax, Experian or Transunion to submit a complaint saying "This person placed a very large order with us, but then reversed payment after the fact. Here is their name, address, phone number, email, dog's middle name,..."

Odd how you were modded as a troll but you've identified a major problem - corporations cannot be executed.

That can work, if it somehow punishes the people who actually made or were responsible for the crimes committed. And it would fail, if it doesn't.

As to punishing corporations, a lot of it is for pretty worthless reasons. For example, EU regulations on goods packaging and electronics connections. Anyone, including evil corporations, should be able to blow off that bullshit. Every nonsensical regulation dilutes society's regard for the law.

You are actually complaining about things like the rule that phones must be chargeable over mini USB?
Apple's refusal to do this properly is one of the reasons I have a different kind of phone, despite happily using their computers.
This rule is a seriously good move, allowing you to be near certain that your phone will be chargeable when you are at a friend's house without your charger. Corporations would never do this without being forced. In fact they would do the opposite, and deliberately use mutually incompatible charger connections.

The standard would never exist without being forced.
Plenty of evidence that no-one was going to play the game: myriad connectors until a useful regulation is brought in which makes everyone's life easier.

Corporations can easily be executed, by revoking their corporate charter. The problem is that the individual people who make up the corporation don't necessarily feel the pain, so they gather themselves back together and form a new corporation tomorrow.

Personally, I've been of the opinion that corporations should be harder to form than $50 and a sheet of paper, such that there are numerous people, even with incomes under $100k, that are sole owners of multiple 'corporations'.

The thought off the top of my head is 'require a $50k surety bond' to ensure that there are some resources available if the 'corporation' behaves badly. Second would be to kill the idea that corporations are 'people', and restrict corporation's rights to own other corporations.

I thought it took three people to incorporate, but maybe that's just a rule for a particular state. I think it would be nice to give corporations fewer legal rights than individuals, since I think that (without a special organizational structure I haven't seen yet) they're inherently less capable of moral behavior than individuals, but now that they can legally donate to politicians, I doubt I'll see that result anytime soon.

The main claim is that the puchase was a contract that imposed the condition of "never acting to harm KlearGear". That could encompass pretty much anything you do. Did you consume a resource that resulted in higher costs to them, did you loan the item to a friend and the friend did not like it. So many accidental ways to breach the "contract"

We the people need the right of fair dealing. We can't have weird contractual conditions imposed. I am not a lawyer so don't know how to put it.Normal actions, including criticism should not result in violations.

that "never acting to harm KlearGear" clause is not legally binding IMO. Since in this case it violated her first amendment right to say that she had bad service from KlearGear. For them to say in a contract she couldn't do that is complete BS. as for suring for 75grand, i would sued for a lot more then that.

The contract clause is unenforceable for multiple reasons. The first amendment has a bearing on one of them.

First there is no contract, The goods were never delivered, KlearGear failed to perform its obligation, there was never an exchange of a consideration. Therefore no contract.

Second, the original agreement was with the husband, the comments were made by the wife.

Third, the contract terms were added after the original agreement as is demonstrated by the Way Back Machine archives

Fourth, even if there had been a contract it would be a contract of adhesion. The seller defines the terms and the buyer has a weak negotiating position. In such cases civilized jurisdictions (i.e. not necessarily a corrupt jurisdiction) generally strike out clauses that are surprising or contrary to normal practice absent clear proof that the buyer was aware the term existed. A line of text in a fifty page contract in 6pt type is not normally enforceable.

Fifth, the term in question was unconscionable which means that it offends the basic principles of commerce and/or society. Constitutional precedent and in particular the first amendment is frequently used to establish that a clause is 'unconscionable'. Kleargear is not 'violating' the first amendment but the courts are not going to enforce a contract term whose purpose is to take away constitutionally protected rights.

Sixth, even if all the above were not so, the claim for $3,500 is a liquidated damages clause and thus invalid. As a matter of public policy, corporations are not allowed to set fines.

Seventh, the amount was clearly in dispute. Thus the reporting to Experian was in breach of the fair credit reporting act.

I am sure that there are weaker claims out there, but I can't think of one offhand.

The claim to be rated by the better business bureau has been shown to be false. KlearGear makes several such claims that have been shown to be false for the purpose of gaining business. That meets the legal definition of fraud. In addition to creating the possibility of criminal sanctions, fraud voids a contract.

IIRC, at the time the transaction was said to take place, KlearGear had not yet even PENNED that clause in their contract, and as such any such term was never a term even presented to the customer at the time of said transaction.

In the venerable wors of Darth Vader: "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it further."

Essentially KlearGear is claiming a breach of contract that was never even presented to the customer, as grounds for their dickishness.

IIRC, at the time the transaction was said to take place, KlearGear had not yet even PENNED that clause in their contract, and as such any such term was never a term even presented to the customer at the time of said transaction.

That is even worse for KlearGear; as it changes the violation from harassment, FCRA violations (for reporting a false loan, from which no goods or services were exchanged) and FCBA violations --- into fraud.

Changing your "terms" after the fact, and pretending as if your new terms apply to a previous sale, so you can extort your customer, is fraud.

Oh it gets even better than that, the husband was the one placing the order. Meaning Kleargear is trying to assert a contract that was never fulfilled ( never delivered the product) using a term that was not present at the time of signing (Non-disparagement was added after) based on the actions of the wife, who didn't agree to anything. IANAL, but I am pretty sure that is against the law, fraud being at least one.

Ah.... that is indeed another wrinkle. Marriage does not give a spouse the ability to legally sign and bind the other spouse to contracts. Utah is not even a community property state. Therefore, any value from the Kleargear contract would be separate property --- the wife would not be party to the agreement, and would have received no consideration from it. The husband is legally unable to bind the actions of the wife.

Clearly, they would have known that the order was not placed by the reviewer, by examining the contents of the order form. The fact that Kleargear chose not to, can only be attributed to an attempt to maintain a false pretense (deception); for the purpose of damaging another individual, by impeding their rights, and/or eliciting financial gain ("defrauding the husband out of $3500").

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

This company is asking the government, in the form of the courts, to stop someone from saying bad things about them. If the court were to grant this request, it would violate the 1st amendment, therefore it can't grant this request.

Courts have already declared that those kinds of 'agreements' (this includes EULAs) can not remove rights, no matter what the agreement says.They're allowed to talk about it, and in a negative fashion, so long as they stick to facts and their opinions. (NDAs are a bit different.)For that matter, the clause saying you can't badmouth them apparently didn't exist at the time those people interacted with that company. So the company is trying to retroactively change the agreement, which is illegal.The threats the company sent, sure look like blackmail, or at least some form of illegal attempt to influence imo. (ianal)Don't forget that the company never delivered the contracted goods, so the contract was invalidated by them for failure to fulfill the contract. Heck, even the credit card company agreed to that and revoked payment.That company also used the logos of the Better Business Bureau and TRUSTe improperly, without permission, and I believe, illegally. I know of know other reason to fake having endorsement by such "trust" organizations as those for any reason other than to run a con. Add that with the companies attempts at avoiding contact and keep as many details secret as they can, and you really have to wonder about their motives. In my case, it's more of a just how extensive and widespread their guilty actions are rather than a more common question of their guilt.

By the way, if that company were to legally prevail, it would be a horrible precedent. It would probably by about 3 seconds before most companies had the same kind of B.S. 'agreements' employed. You wouldn't be able to say or do anything bad about any company lest you be 'charged' a huge penalty. You probably couldn't even recommend a competitors product or store to a friend, since that would be an action that negatively affects a company. And when it comes to abusing laws, it's it's not a matter of if, it's only a matter of when.

Contracts restrict the first amendment right to free speech (which only applies to the government) all the time. A non-disclosure agreement is a perfect example.

The problem in this case is that KlearGear failed to fulfil their part of the contract (didn't deliver the goods), but then are trying to say the other party is still bound by the contract terms. You cannot hold the other party accountable to a contract while you willfully ignore it. There is no longer a valid contract because KlearGear broke it. The negative reviews are basically the woman saying KlearGear broke the contract.

The first amendment has nothing to do with this. It simply prevents the government from creating any law which abridges the freedom of speech. The freedom to speak about certain matters is something that the government cannot take away from you without a damn good reason, however the freedom to speak about certain matters is something that individuals can sign away on their own.

Non disclosure agreements are incredibly common contracts in the business world that in effect are in effect unilateral or bilatera

both myself and the courts would beg to differ. While it's true that the Constitution of the United States DOES only cover government, it also covers cases of abuse by corporations. Remember that the court system itself IS an arm of the government...

that "never acting to harm KlearGear" clause is not legally binding IMO. Since in this case it violated her first amendment right to say that she had bad service from KlearGear. For them to say in a contract she couldn't do that is complete BS. as for suring for 75grand, i would sued for a lot more then that.

Bad but correct reviews are not harmful. To the contrary, they force the company to improve their products and services, which can only improve their profits in the long term.

The Constitution doesn't grant ANY rights. The Bill of Rights recognizes is a non-exhaustive list of rights of the natural rights of free people. These rights predated the Constitution, and people are entitled to them with or without the Constitution.

As the USOC [sic - the Supreme Court???] recognized, the first amendment only grants the right from government restrictions on free speech. Other entities such as... schools are not required to grant you the right to free speech.

Again, the government didn't GRANT you the rights listed in the first amendment (because the rights were there already), but the government is required to RESPECT the rights that you already had. This applies to all governmental institutions, which includes most schools.

Please stop treating the Constitution like a religious document. It is not.It is very limited and very specific.

Actually the idea is readily demonstrable in the real world. Take the right to keep and bear arms, which society still hasn't figured out how to effectively take away even in the most controlled of environments, as evidenced by the plastic shank sticking out of some poor bastard in the prison shower. It is the quintessential 'natural right', one that all human beings are born with, and one that is impossible to completely deprive them of. Free speech is the same, you can punish someone after the fact if you're an oppressive regime that doesn't recognize it, but you can't actually stop them from exercising it in the first place.

"technically yes, you do have the right"No, technically, you don't. You are arbitrarily redefining "right" to mean "capability", which it doesn't, because if it did, the whole discussion about natural vs granted or rights at all would be moot. Everything one could possibly do would be a right, which would remove the need to legally describe rights at all, and there'd be not protection under the concept of a right.

Just admit, your first idea about rights was clearly incorrect, and you might as well abandon i

That must be the most ill-conceived post I've seen in/. on all my years here, and that's saying something. Just because you can't prevent anyone from doing something (murder, rape or holding a speech) doesn't make it a "right". Punishing someone after the fact does take the "right" away, you really think saying something then facing an execution squad is free speech? As for "natural" rights, I consider that a joke. Try arguing your "right to life" with a hungry lion, rights only exists between entities that recognize those rights. If your government doesn't recognize freedom of speech, the difference between having it and not having it is entirely philosophical.

Most people, even those who like to pretend they only care about negative rights care about positive rights. If you say something and the government wants to hang you from the nearest tree but the law won't let them that's a negative right. If you say something and the community wants to hang you from the nearest tree but the police or the law won't let them that's a positive right. What's really your "freedom" of speech worth if the Taleban will kill you for it and nobody will care? Not very much.

> The idea that 'people have natural rights' is not falsifiable. Your disgreement with the OP is an entirely religious one.

BS. The "government" doesn't exist -- only people and things exist. To say "the government" grants you rights means other people grant you rights. How in god's name did they get this awesome power? Why do you think it's proper to get on bended knee and beg for rights from them?

People can't "grant" rights, but they sure as hell can take away others' rights. Stop lying supine for

But for nearly all intents and purposes, the government *does* exist. It is a legal construct, and the people elected to represent our interests possess the power, via legislation, to affect many aspects of your life. You're right that "other people grant you rights", but they don't do it as individuals, they do it via the legal entity known as government. One of the things that's handy about having a "government" grant you rights, pass legislation, etc, rather than individuals is that you don't have to re

Rights can neither be granted, nor taken away. Basic rights are something that no one can give or take; they're more like ideas than actual things. Privileges are what most people think of today when they talk about rights. Guns are a good example: Let's say the Government finally decides citizens can't own pistols (for whatever reason). What's to stop me from owning one? I could own an unregistered pistol the rest of my life. Now, if I get caught with it, all kinds of nasty things may happen to me.

You got it reverse. Of course people can grant rights. All your rights are granted by other people. You as yourself don't have any rights. It's just an agreement between people that you have rights. They are not inherent to your being. If you don't believe it go into the next civil war zone and then tell me about your rights to property or free speech or due process. Those rights don't exist in a civil war zone, because there are no people there willing or able to grant you those rights.

Natural Rights are those rights that are universal, that arise naturally from the human condition, human evolution/creation/existence. It is a "soft law" concept, that can only be assessed imperfectly and on a case-by-case basis. However, it encompass a basic set of moral concepts that are common in nearly all human cultures, and indeed many of them are true for other creatures too. Do not murder (hunting isn't usually counted), do not steal/lie, do not rape, do not commit adultery. This is generally the ba

Good thing that's not the assertion then. Instead, the Founders asserted that "Free people have a bunch of rights, and a government that tries to deny the people these rights does not govern over a free people. Since the American people are to be free, Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech. And the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. And so on."

The Bill of Rights is a definition, intended to define governments into two categories based on how free their people are. The category that the Founders intended the US to fall into was "A government that governs free people." Other governments, ones that don't recognize the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are "Tyrannical governments that lord over their citizens." Because the Founders gave us a definition, the statement "The US is a Free country" is falsifiable.

The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government. Period. It grants no rights, nor does it assume that anyone has any sort of "natural rights". The Bill of Rights is simply a list of things the federal government is not allowed to do.

KlearGear is attempting to enforce a purported contract term, guess what regulates contracts, oh yes, its the courts. And guess what the courts are part of, oh yes they are part of the government.

One of the sources of the Bill of Rights was precisely a concern about the government 'privatizing' censorship. That is how the British libel laws came into being, the purposes were to reduce the number of duels by providing an alternative dispute resoluti

Try to keep up. There was a war back in the 1860's about whether Americans were citizens or subjects to the federal government. By forcing some of the subjects back into the union it was pretty well established that you're subjects to your government, denied basic rights like the right to leave the union.Citizens have basic rights such as in Great Britain where if Scotland decides to leave, they are allowed as long as it is done in a democratic manner. (There are still some subjects in the UK, namely Irish

Yeah, the "fine" fails on so many levels. A contract term added after the formation of the contract, enforced based on a contract that KlearGear breached (by not delivering), enforced on someone who was not the contracting party (the person posting the review was not the person who made the purchase), and unconscionable to boot.

Based on all this and my knowledge of the integrity of the legal system, my bet is the Palmers will lose their suit and KlearGear's fine will be upheld, with the Palmers paying KlearGear's attorney fees.

We the people need the right of fair dealing. We can't have weird contractual conditions imposed. I am not a lawyer so don't know how to put it.

My understanding is: while the buyer placed an order and paid: the retailer never delivered their order. Therefore, the order was unfulfilled, AND, there was not completion of the "contract" as agreed; therefore, if true, then there was no contract, or the retailer was in breach, because:

Playing the devil's advocate here, I'd see many situations where it'd be reasonable to ask that the details be kept secret even if the transaction is not completed, for example if you're negotiating a buyout under an NDA. What if you're negotiating the sale of the entire inventory? A big part of it? A small part of it? A single item? I can sort of understand companies that want to say we want this resolved by the terms of the agreement and in court if necessary, but you can't try to publicly blackmail us by

The EULA's can say what they like. If it's deemed unreasonable, especially if it's one-sided, courts will just ignore those portions of it.

I think commenting your own opinion on a product/service you used can't really ever be deemed unreasonable until it becomes harassment, and that's relatively easy to determine and prose cute for.

Fact is, all this company have done is said they'll sue their own customers unless they never have a problem and/or never tell anyone about it. It's a perfect way to lose customers.

They can claim anything they like, but that doesn't mean that a court will back them - especially not when they breached the contract themselves first (thus making all the other party's obligations under that contract null and void).

Just because someone says "But you signed/agreed to this", it doesn't mean that you are bound by it. It's a complete fallacy. It just means that you have to prove it's unreasonable rather than, in the case of not signing it, do nothing.

There was a lot of cases about whether automatic "if you park here, you are agreeing to pay a Â£100 'fine'" signs put up by private landowners. Loads of people ignored them and paid fines. And then courts said that it was unreasonable and not legal. And now those landowners are having to pay all that money (and expenses) back.

A contract has to be fair and reasonable, or it's not a contract at all. And yet you can still be held by your side of the contract (e.g. providing the damn service you were required to) while having all your provisos (e.g. NDA's or termination clauses) rendered void. It all depends on the balance of contract law.

But, honestly, don't agree to such things in the first place (this person says they didn't, for instance), and don't let people get away with such things when they can't keep their own side of the agreement.

in the case, it seems to me, is that they never delivered on their end of the sale, yet still seek to enforce the other side of the contract.

Of course, it's a BS, should-be-unenforceable clause of the contract that may not have even been in the contract at the time. The above seems like the easiest way to win the case, but hopefully Public Citizen can get some precedent set for it as unenforceable.

And this press release also says "Kleargear is donating 2% of net sales between November 17th and December 17th to The American Red Cross in support of our friends and neighbors affected by Sunday's devastating tornado outbreak across the Midwest." Who wants to bet any of their money gets to anyone who's ever seen a tornado? Best to check on the legitimacy of these charity solicitations of course. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette has been making charity fraudsters one of this pet projects lately: See "A Michigan Crackdown On Charity Fraud" [blogspot.com]. I'll bet Schuette's office would be more than happy to hear about any problems from companies that happen to officially give their state of residence as Michigan and claim to help Michigan tornado victims. The Michigan Attorney General has a specific phone number for Questions About Charities [michigan.gov].

Of course, maybe the French address is fake too. They're a bit pickier about that in France though, I think. Anyone have the contact info for the corporation regulators or charity regulators in Paris?

Also: The BBB gave Kleargear.com an F rating, [bbb.org] before Kleargear.com inserted this ruin-your-customers-lives clause in their terms and then faked the A+ rating on their website. For those of you who can't see popups on the BBB site: As of November 28, 2012, the BBB became aware that the company's website is displaying a BBB Accredited Business logo and BBB Rating A+; however, the company is not a BBB accredited business and the BBB rating is not A+. The BBB contacted the company regarding these issues and this matter is pending the company's response. As of November 28, 2012, the BBB discovered that some pages of the company's website display the BBB Accredited Business Logo and state "BBB Rating A+", when neither is true. The BBB contacted the company at the Michigan mail drop address instructing the company to immediately remove the incorrect BBB logo and reference from their site. This matter is currently pending.